Dracula: Uncovering the Origins
Part of the purpose of this course is to look at the different ways that the vampire can be, or has been, re-defined by different works--both literary and theoretical. According to Jenkins, Stoker did not define Dracula based on Vlad the Impaler. But other theorists have argued that he did. To loosen up our normal theoretically-driven posts, what do you think? Why do you believe Dracula was defined in the ways that Stoker defined him? What makes Dracula represent "the vampire"--why do we still honor Stoker with creating, defining, and representing the vampire (especially given that there were several vampire stories floating around before Stoker wrote Dracula)? Jenkins says that "all roads lead to [Dracula]"--and I want you to really explore why you believe that's the case.
Given that we have read several different pieces that ask you to redefine your understanding of the vampire, your response may be based in some theory. If up to this point, as some of you have mentioned, you haven't, in some way or another, re-defined or expanded your understanding of the vampire, explore why that may be. Are your own conventions driving your understanding of the vampire blurring the possibility of an expansion? Do you view the vampire through a Dracula-like haze?
**I'm not looking for you to *knock the readings here rather explore your own understanding of the vampire, where it came from, and why the belief is there.
300-500 words. Engage with others.
Due: Thursday, April 19, 2012 by class time.
I really have no theory as to whether or not Bram Stoker based Dracula on Vlad the Impaler because I do not think there is enough evidence to prove or disprove this theory. However, I don’t necessarily think it’s important because Dracula is a strong enough monster to stand on his own; he doesn’t rely on the previous knowledge of other monsters. Even if Stoker was influenced by Vlad the Impaler, I feel like there were enough other elements that he was influenced by (such as the crypt he possibly visited with his parents) to make his creation unique. In this way, Dracula is his own monster, formed through his own thought and ideas. Dracula represents the typical vampire because of his nocturnal life, his thirst for blood, and his supernatural powers. I think that we still honor Stoker’s version of the vampire because it is logical. While we don’t necessarily believe in the existence of vampires, scary stories are always more scary if you can somehow see them happening in real life. As bizarre as Dracula is, it makes sense. Because Stoker explains exactly how a vampire could exist, it allows us to believe that they might exist. I agree with Jenkins’ statement that “all road leads to Dracula” because stories prior to Dracula did not adequately explain the existence of vampires and stories after Dracula continued Stoker’s base of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDuring this class, I have acquired a lot of information about the legends and myths of vampires and how they might have stemmed from medical issues, but I have not really redefined my understanding of the vampire. I think that because Dracula is the most well-known and “famous” vampire, my understanding of the vampire stems completely from Dracula. Even before reading Dracula, my understanding of the vampire stemmed from other vampire stories that were in some way based upon Dracula. I think that once a specific monster is created, it is difficult to see that monster in a new light.
Dracula and Vlad the impaler don't really seem to have that many similarities, other than that they both have immensely distorted and frightening ideas of morality, and, of course, their shared name. But, that can be said about thousands of famous historical antagonists. Vlad and Dracula have about as much in common as Charles Manson and Dracula, or Hannibal Lector and Dracula. They are both evil, but that's about it. I agree with Katherine that Dracula stands alone not only because he doesn't share many similarities with previous “vampires”, but also because Stoker created a figure that is capable of standing alone. In other words, it's not just what he lacks when to compared to previous villains, but also what he has. When he was created, he was undoubtedly Stoker's child, rather than Vlad's, or anyone's else's metaphorical child. This is part of the reason that Dracula is so amazing. How was Stoker able to create such a frightening, interesting, and detailed character without taking much information from previous vampiric characters? Well, I guess there's really no point in asking this question, because the fact is that he did. Regardless, this is the key to understanding why Stoker has been accredited with creating the vampire. Before Dracula, there was no vampiric character created with the use of so much detail, detail that allowed the Count to jump off the page. Dracula is usually seen as monstrous, but he has to be somewhat relatable. Otherwise, there is no explanation for why he has become so popular. Perhaps Dracula's inkling of humanity may have had something to do with his popularity, and therefore his official label as the father of all vampires. No other gothic character in history has ever had the effect the Dracula has had. After Dracula was created, the vampire expanded farther and wider than anyone could possibly foresee.
ReplyDeleteWe talk all the time about the monstrosity represented in Dracula, but what about his humanity. Without this essential ingredient, Dracula would just be words on a page, a monster that is nothing more than pure entertainment. Instead, however we try to understand Dracula and his motives. If he were pure monster, we would not even attempt interpretation. But, the point is that we do. Simply by trying to decipher the mystery that is Dracula, we are basically saying that he is capable of being deciphered. If he were completely alien, like a pure monster, then there would be nowhere to start, no platform. It's hard to say for sure what is his most prevalent human quality. Perhaps it is his desire, or his ambition. Either way, there is something there, some dimly beating heart, some form of humanity buried deep within his soul. I believe that it is this tiny crumb of humanity that has allowed for the popularity for the popularity of Dracula, and the label of the vampire.
People want to feel connected, it’s what we crave. We seek ways to relate to every person, experience, or story that we encounter. These connections that we draw are what we attach to memories to strengthen their hold in our minds. Prior to Dracula, the vampire was a shallow, supernatural, monstrous character. There was no depth that we could analyze and be intrigued by. Once Stoker introduced Dracula however, the vampire gained multidimensionality. In the book Stoker’s description of Dracula left us with a strong impression of the “abnormal,” of a monster. This is followed by Dracula being a gracious host and gentleman. Since when were evil monsters gracious? When Dracula then discusses his family history, the character of the vampire is given something immeasurable to humans—roots. We now can theorize a childhood for Dracula. We may even create stories in our minds, to add to the alluded background, which connect closely to our personal histories. “All roads lead to Dracula” because Dracula was the character which initially paved the path for the existence of these roads. Through the depth of Dracula’s character Stoker enabled us to connect with the vampire (whether it be in a positive way or horrifying way) and thus strengthen our memory of the story.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Eric did an excellent job of saying something similar, that “before Dracula, there was no vampiric character created with the use of so much detail.” This detail that Eric mentions is what comprises the depth that Stoker added to the vampire. The most common figure that we associate with depth and complexity is a human. In this way I do believe that Stoker pulled the character of Dracula from Vlad the Impaler. Vlad was human so encompassed all the complexities of humanity, yet was evil. The combination of humanity and true evil/monstrous villain had to have been a consideration while Stoker created Dracula. Where Vlad was human then became evil, Dracula was predefined as pure evil, then had the sliver of humanity sprinkled in. Beyond this connection, however, I agree with Katherine and believe that Dracula stands alone.
Personally, I am able to tie my own perception of what is a vampire directly to Stoker. Dracula sleeps during the day, is susceptible to garlic, is affected by sacred objects, is incredibly strong, can be killed by a stake, and drinks human blood. Each of these characteristics defines Dracula’s identity as a vampire, and each of these defined my childhood interpretation of a vampire. In this way I believe that Dracula does control the basic understanding of the vampire. However, once I started reading book like Twilight my old notion of the vampire seemed superstitious. The modern craze along with our current readings, which make me analyze the vampire and a medium with a message, have certainly expanded my conception of the vampire. Yet, the very ability for me to analyze the vampire is all thanks to Stoker creating a character that society could draw connections with.
From the information I have gathered on the history of vampires, Dracula seems to be so significant in vampire lore because Stoker created a creature that connected the myths from various parts of Europe that were prominent at the time. Historically, western European stories of undead corpses never involved any type of blood thirst. Rather, the corpses were more like tangible ghosts, or savage animals. “Vampires,” as the public knew them, were still soulless undead monsters, and this is one characteristic that was obviously incorporated into Stoker’s Dracula. On top of this, Stoker added the Slavic characteristic of a blood thirsty vampire who rises from the grave to drink the blood of innocent townspeople in the night, thus satisfying the eastern European vision of the vampire as well. Because of this blending of myths, Stoker created a vampire that every culture could, in part, relate to their own legends.
ReplyDeleteAs far as “all roads leading to Dracula,” I think the case is more that all roads were able to converge in order to create Dracula. Certain characteristics from the various myths may have become prominent enough for Stoker to feel the need to include them in his own vampire. Things like the lack of a soul, blood thirst, and the techniques of killing a vampire were all well-known enough in their respective regions to be picked out of their specific myths and be placed into a new creation unifying the scattered vampire myths of different countries. It is because of this that I feel Dracula defines the wide-spread image of the vampire that we have today. Stoker was able to take the very-similar-but-not-quite-the-same myths present in Europe and unify them in Dracula.
I agree with Katherine’s statement that it’s difficult to see the vampire in a different light when something as iconic as Dracula has defined the monster for so long. Even though Dracula will probably always be my reference point when it comes to vampires, I’ve learned through our reading of the “ontology of monstrosity” that vampires are still undergoing an evolutionary process. I previously thought that the new craze of vampires was completely disconnected from the “traditional” lore of vampires that existed within Gothic literature, but now I see why, culturally, vampires had to have evolved in order to remain so popular within our society.
I see quite a few similarities between Dracula and Vlad the Impaler and I believe that Stoker got at least partial inspiration for Dracula’s character from him. Jenkins puts forth the idea that Stoker only borrowed the name and the military history from Vlad, but I believe there is more to this than these few connections. Obviously with what evidence we have, not nearly as many people were killed by impalement as is believed to be the case, but nonetheless, Vlad the Impaler’s history is an important piece to the puzzle of Dracula, whether or not they are connected in any way.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Stoker defined Dracula in very specific ways. Before Dracula, the vampire was just another static monster, a story passed down through generations. Stoker sought to change all that – he wanted to bring the vampire to life, as it were, and make its presence in literary culture much more prominent. Stoker took bits and pieces from different folklores and patched them together to create what we think of today as the vampire; he created a “Frankenstein’s monster” using words and legends. I think Dracula represents the quintessential vampire simply because we still honor Stoker with creating, defining, and representing the vampire. Humanity’s constant analyses of Dracula as a character and as a characteristic of fear give testament to the strength with which Stoker wrote him. Even though there were some vampire stories around before Dracula, I think what Ali and Eric said in their posts is true – before Dracula, the vampire was just another monster, one with no depth of character or any sort of development at all.
I think Jenkins said that “all roads lead to Dracula” because of my reasons stated earlier. Because we have analyzed Dracula for so long, he has become the starting and ending point for nearly all research on vampires today. One cannot simply begin talking about vampires and leave Dracula out of the conversation. Dracula is the vampire and the vampire is Dracula.
I have done research and read into the vampires before, so I do know quite a bit about them as supernatural creatures. I think that my own conventions are in fact driving my understanding behind the true nature of the vampire. However, I do listen in class and integrate what we have learned into my understanding of the vampire. I try to see the vampire as many of its incarnations and piece together my own understanding of what the vampire is to me. Everyone sees things in a slightly different light and I believe that no single authority on the subject of vampires is the definitive source for this creature. It is up to everyone to take what they have learned and created their own informed understanding of the vampire.
George Washington can clearly settle this debate. And no, I don’t mean by making a prequel to Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Killer. As the first president, George Washington set up precedents like two-term presidency, neutrality in foreign affairs, application of force in the executive branch, and creation of the Cabinet. These choices set the way that our country has governed itself for 150 years. Although technically, John Hanson was the first president under The Articles of Confederation he arguably had less impact. Just like Vlad might have influenced Dracula, it is Dracula and George Washington who resounds as the definition and precedent for future generations. As a society we like conformity so once we find a base-model that worked well, we stuck with it. Dracula was so well fleshed out and had such an effect that he remains permanently embedded in American culture. I agree with Ali that Dracula served to humanize the monster and that this added depth is what makes him the starting point for all the vampires that followed.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Dracula is the base model, I view vampires from the clouded lens of my own time period. From Sesame Street to cheap Halloween decorations, I was first introduced to vampires in a way that not only made them synonymous with Dracula but also introduced them to me as cartooned. Followed by the Twilight saga in 2005, I have rarely see a negative or monster side of the vampire. To be afraid of dogs, you cannot grow up around fluffy, cute puppies. The purple cape, plastic fangs, and bat animagus aspect of vampires represents a “classic” vampire to me. I still knew there was a bad, traditional side to vampires but that always was the original type – since then they have been defanged. The introduction of romantic vegetarian vampire competing with bloodthirsty heatless vampire competing with Count Dracula leads to a chaos of vampire types. Dracula is the origin of all these, but societies divergence of the phenotype leads to my thoughts on vampires being not based in fear but as a common cultural character. For example hearing about Vlad for the first time, impaled (bad pun intended) my traditional view of the vampire. Katherine pointed out, “once a specific monster is created, it is difficult to see that monster in a new light.” Dracula has become such the core definition of the vampire, it is hard for us to see Vlad as the overarching vampire model. Plus, most importantly of all, we find it easier to mock and dress up as a character rather than a human who committed atrocious acts.
There are definitely some similarities between Vlad and Dracula, most notably their propensity towards violence, their military back ground and Vlad’s association with the name Drakul/Dracula. That being said it’s really hard to say whether or not these similarities suggest that Dracula was based on Vlad or the similarities are symptomatic of the fact that they’re both really evil characters. Most villains, while not necessarily based on one another, share some similarities simply because they are villains. I feel like Dracula is probably the product of a few historical characters that Stoker was exposed to along with his own personal experiences – like his childhood visit to the graveyard, discussed in Vampire Forensics.
ReplyDeleteI think Dracula has come to embody the archetypal vampire because Stoker managed to attach a character to what was previously just a list of shared characteristics. I agree with Ali and Eric that Stoker draws a really detailed portrait of Dracula and in doing so he creates more than just a vampire, but instead a robust character. Some of the most popular films, T.V. shows and books are popular because they follow a distinct character that the audience likes to engage with. House is popular, in large part, because at the heart of what would otherwise be a prototypical medical drama is a really interesting character. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is more than just a Swedish variation of the John Grisham novel/ film adaptation because at the heart of a basic crime thriller is a unique character that the reader is compelled by. Similarly, in my opinion Dracula was so popular because at the heart of a prototypical vampire narrative is a really well drawn character that happens to suck blood, have an allergy to garlic and silver and be immortal. I think the reason that Dracula is such a popular character is because his supernatural qualities are peripheral to him.
I don’t think my conception of the vampire has really changed over the course of the class, because like almost everyone else my reference for vampires is framed by Dracula and all of the vampire narratives that followed Dracula are at least in some way derivative of the original vampire character. However, I’d like to think that my recognition of how the vampire has been manipulated by the story teller to fit the needs or wants of society is a little more attuned than it previously was.
I believe that there is definitely some truth in the theory that Bram Stoker used Vlad the Impaler as a basis for Dracula. I think that Vlad was used as a building block for the Dracula we know today and that Stoker took some of the things he knew about Vlad and used them to influence the Dracula he created. For one thing, it is pretty obvious that he took the name of “Dracula” directly from Vlad. I would assume that Stoker realized how perfect the name of Dracula was, in that it means both dragon and devil, and then also used some of the traits of Vlad to influence his Dracula. Also, it is said that today there are no new ideas; we are merely recycling old thoughts into current times. Using this anecdote, I think it is likely that Stoker took ideas he got from the crypt, Vlad, and many other sources to give us Dracula.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first realized I would be taking a class on vampire, the first thing I thought of was Dracula. I have never seen any of the movies or read the book, but he was still the initial thought I had of the vampire. Dracula represents the vampire because of the scale of the book Dracula. This novel was one of the defining pieces of gothic literature at the time. In addition, as Eric said, there had never been such a vivid description of the vampire before Stoker wrote Dracula. Through vivid descriptions of the physical characteristics of Dracula as well as numerous stories about the actions of him, we gain a huge understanding of the character and begin to feel like he is a real person/creature/devil (whatever he may be?). Before Dracula all of the vampire stories had been merely colloquial legends that were told through word of mouth. Oral stories tend to focus much more on the events and actions in stories and much less on the descriptions behind them. Because of this, the oral stories couldn’t ever create a concrete vampire to think of, but rather just described the over-arching components of the vampire in general.
I definitely think that this class has expanded my view of the vampire. I took the zombie FSEM first quarter and started to realize how much more complex monsters were than just mindless beings that inflict terror. I now understand the nature of the vampire and why we fear/love them much better than before the class. Also, by reading Dracula, the crowning novel in vampire literature, I can understand the origin of the creatures and how they have gotten to where they are today.
When looking at Dracula, rather than saying that he is based off Vlad the Impaler, I think it makes more sense to say that some characteristics from Vlad were borrowed for the creation of Dracula. There are distinct similarities between the two, including their violent natures, and their connection to the name Drakul, but I don’t think it is enough to say that Dracula is specifically based off Vlad.
ReplyDeleteAll roads lead to Dracula, because in all the research he did, Stoker in essence created a new definition of the vampire by still staying true to the essential vampire myth and adding in new characteristics from his own experiences. Dracula does not share many similarities with previous myths, but he does share enough to keep his identity as a vampire. In that sense Dracula synthesized what was important from vampire myths before it, creating a new, modern vampire. Then, with its popularity, Dracula became a sort of jumping off point for authors of new vampire stories to follow. On top of this, just as Ali and Eric stated, Dracula was the first vampire to encompass so much detail and a sprinkle of humanity, allowing people to connect with the character. Dracula became an example and an obvious starting point for the now very human vampire. We still follow Stoker’s version of the vampire because his myth was the first to turn the vampire from simply a thing, into something “living.” Dracula was more complex than the myths before him and because of his small amount of humanity, for the first time could be manipulated in more human ways.
I still see Dracula when I picture a vampire and I think this is because of how pervasive he has become as an icon in today’s culture. Before having ever read the book or seen a movie based on Dracula, I had a fundamental understanding of him. However, while I still see the same image when thinking of the vampire I have started to really understand the vampire as a reflection of the culture it comes from. I am able to look at individual vampires and see them based on the society that created them. At the same time however, I think Dracula will always prevail as the essential image of a vampire for me.
I think this quote from the reading sums it up nicely: “It is not so much Dracula the novel as its progenies – the many stage and screen versions – that have had the greatest impact on the popular conception of the vampire. Somehow the story is never quite the same, however. It has been dramatized, bowdlerized, and sensationalized, truncated here and expanded there” (50). Because of Stoker’s creation of the vampire Dracula, the rest of the world for years after would be able to recreate the image of the vampire in its own way, creating new messages from new mediums. Clearly, we definitely still honor Stoker with creating, defining, and representing the vampire, and we know this because of all of the vampire media that there is out there today. Dracula serves as the basis for the vampire. Before this novel, there wasn’t really anything to explain what the vampire truly was; only old tales and stories passed on by mouth. With Stoker’s Dracula, there is a concrete, physical, understandable character with very specific vampire traits that he describes very thoroughly. Katherine says that “Dracula represents the typical vampire,” and I definitely agree with that.
ReplyDeleteJust the fact that everyone knows the name “Dracula” definitely shows that this vampire is the poster child for the vampire. From Dracula came more vampires, but they all used Stoker’s version as a basis – it has simply been “dramatized, bowdlerized, and sensationalized, truncated here and expanded there.” Before this class, I really only knew vampires from Twilight. Take me as an example – someone that didn’t know anything about vampires knew enough about Dracula. However, I am still learning, and am realizing that the vampire monster is an ontology – it’s a continuing evolutionary process that is going to be redefined over and over.
I agree with Zach in that Dracula “has become the starting and ending point for nearly all research on vampires today.” Even centuries from now, when the vampire will be redefined even more, people will still be able to locate its starting point with Stoker’s Dracula.
I have to agree with Jenkins that Dracula was not based fully on Vlad the Impaler. Beyond both historically being from Transylvania they are entirely different characters. Vlad was not much of stand up guy, but he was a guy, not an immortal being of the night. Stoker clearly attempts to differentiate Dracula from a human and for that reason these two figures are drastically different. His juxtaposition of the vampire in Lucy along with the constant contrast of Dracula with the patient Renfield clearly creates a boundary between the supernatural and the mortal.
ReplyDeleteStoker employed many tools to differentiate Dracula from any monster that came before him. The book Vampyre was published in 1819 and has been credited as the first example of the vampire in mainstream literature. However, it was not so much the idea of vampirism, but the monster that Stoker made out of it. Dracula was the first vampire that the reader began to understand as a character and as something that people could unanimously fear. It is not the individual traits that make Dracula the father of all vampires. It is the characterization that brought all of these stories together into one horrific character. Dracula was not a vampire; he was the vampire.
In an alternate reality where I cook, I would be employing the same process Stoker used to define Dracula everytime I made a meal. It is not the individual ingredients that are appreciated, but the final product. If I handed you a plate of spaghetti I would expect you to thank me, not Farmer John who produced the grain for the spaghetti. This is because I am the one who mixed the tomatoes with the noodles and made something magnificent. If any one of these ingredients is taken alone it is a snack, but together and with some expertise they become a masterpiece. Stoker took the preconceptions of a vampire and put them in his skillet and cooked them all together for 300 pages of characterization. What he got was a character that embodied all of the elements of a vampire, but in the form of a monstrosity who exemplified everything we fear. He was the final product, a hybrid of former tales and present worries.
Scooby-Doo is whom I owe an enormous thank-you to for the introduction to my first vampire episode. The popular cartoon-network show became the first medium in which I was exposed to the blood-sucking terror. The vampire showcased was the infamous Dracula character. Known for snoozing in a coffin during the day, hypnosis powers, and weaknesses of garlic and a wooden stake, Bram Stoker’s Dracula defined the image of the vampire from the beginning. This is due primarily to the fact that it was the only creation that was ever solidified and burned into our memories. The impressive idea formed into an incomparable thought, manifested into a phenomenal character, and was transferred to an unforgettable story that will forever be the pioneer to the vampire evolution.
ReplyDeleteAs Ali mentions, “Prior to Dracula, the vampire was a shallow, supernatural, monstrous character. There was no depth that we could analyze and be intrigued by. Once Stoker introduced Dracula however, the vampire gained multidimensionality.” I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Before Dracula there was not a visionary or impressionable image of the vampire. I can correlate previous constructions of the vampire to the kissing of toads before stumbling upon the incomparable prince. Dracula was the true creation that established a solidified presence in my mind.
Jenkins notes, “All roads lead to Dracula.” This is an authentic and all-encompassing viewpoint. There may have been trails and tracks created predating and postdating Dracula, but each of these paths twist and turn back to the unsurpassed illustration Bram Stoker transferred from his imagination to paper. Although Twilight, specifically Edward Cullen has shaped and shifted by view of the vampire by bringing to light alternate multifaceted features, I perceive this representation as separate, isolated from the compartmentalized Dracula form. I distinguish Dracula as distinct and unattached from all other depictions because no other interpretations of the vampire have impacted Dracula; rather Dracula has influenced all delineations of other vampires.
The theories and storylines we have discussed in class have only further materialized Dracula as the first vestige of vampire history. Defining and memorable moments in life are characterized by the degree and level of influence and impact, whether it was negative or positive, short or long, with others or on your own, the one measurement of how noteworthy an encounter is, is based off of the level of impression. Although other factors can contribute to how resolutely engraved a memory is, such as surrounding circumstances and environments, and the happenstances that have occurred subsequently, the inscribed memory is etched for eternity. Dracula is this memory, etched infinitely in the division of my mind labeled Vampire Origin. I believe the extent at which he has been around, my age of exposure, the medium in which it was introduced, and the reoccurring theme of Dracula, instigates its residing connection to the paramount vampire image. As Chelsea mentions, “As a society we like conformity so once we find a base-model that worked well, we stuck with it.” Not only did I find a “base-model” for the vampire that worked well in my mind, but also the vampire inadvertently concreted itself in my psyche as Dracula.
Vlad the Impaler and Dracula, in my mind, share only one similarity: they are seen as “monsters” in today’s society. These repulsive and unwanted creatures have been victims of the media through the years. They have been depicted as distorted and immoral beings that plague the “innocence” of our young and helpless. Unfortunately, we often ignore how the media can act as the message itself; the image of the monster, its ontology, leads us to believe that it is the vampire that infects our minds, when it is truly the social norms that the vampire represents that creates our undeniable attraction to the “monster”. I believe that in a way, Stoker created a “monstrosity” instead of a specific monster. The behaviors and actions of Dracula (blood sucking, sex, violence) act as constraints to present and future vampire figures. Stoker created “the vampire”: an undead creature that sustains life by feeding on the life power of other living mortals. However, this monster was not created as a punctum. Instead, it was a result of a process of occurrences and social norms that have ultimately helped to form the image of the vampire we know today. For example, many people believe that Dracula is a representation of the Englishman’s contempt for nineteenth century Eastern Europe. Dracula references his previous exposure to Eastern European culture and his battle against the Turks in Stoker’s novel. Similar to the rhetorical situation, the vampire was created out of context from both historical and present conditions.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the vampire has been adapted in order to fit today’s social norms. Although the constraints of the vampire remain mostly in tact, the interpretation of the vampire’s ontology has led to a reformation of the attitude towards these creatures. Attraction to vampires has become more prevalent in all types of media. Analyzing this particular progression has shed new light on the vampire. Before this class, I never saw the vampire as a result of the social implications of the past and present. Now, I can view the vampire as a glorification our accepted social norms (the other day, I could not watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer for enjoyment because I was picking apart the vampire’s every movement- I am cursed). I have seen how numerous creatures can be considered vampires, such as the monsters highlighted in the book and movie I Am Legend. Although Bram Stoker’s Dracula lays the framework for vampires in the twentieth and twenty-first century, different artists have created unique adaptations of this mythical creature
I partially disagree with Katherine. I believe that Dracula is not strong enough to stand by himself. He internally relies on previous beliefs and ideas that are apparent in both his behavior and appearance. However, I do agree with the fact that the vampire is logical and believable. Eric says something along those lines: “Dracula is usually seen as monstrous, but he has to be somewhat relatable”. The attraction we have to Dracula and other vampires stems from our connection to their nature.